Slashdot Mirror

Haha ;-)

So MacOS Rumors is basically playing the Telephone Game with itself?
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA

As much as this scheme might confuse the MPAA it might also hinder dissemination of information on how to decrypt DVDs. I would think that the goal of OpenDVD and all this DeCSS advocacy would be to promote freedom of information and spread the knowledge to as many people as possible. Obfuscation is counter productive to that goal. MPAA is secondary and in 20 years it wont matter which clueless agency we're fighting with, as long as we know what we're fighting about.

There are many better ways to help DeCSS advocacy. Check out OpenDVD.org . Take a look at this image and a copy of the dvd source code will be saved in your chace inside of a png image.

There is also stuff like Freenet which claims to provide "an information publication system similar to the World Wide Web..[where] it will be virtually impossible to forcibly remove a piece of information". I guess this means something like a distributed information network, where information will be mirrored and spread around the nodes without central control.

But the most important thing you can do, and only a few can i suppose, is to understand what the code does and how it does it. Without understanding it becomes a meaningless banner. So does anybody have any info on how to learn about the inner workings of DVD decryption?

Lets make thier jobs -hard-.

Chris DiBona
VA Linux Systems

--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG

I expect that, since someone in the UK press has published information on how to circumvent controls on accessing copyrighted material, that the MPAA will file a lawsuit (or they will find someone in the UK willing to file on their behalf) posthaste.

I mean, if a couple of "evil hackers" in Norway can't write a program to get around CSS, then why should "the hi-fi press" (?) in the UK be able to publish information on how to hack the units themselves?

And isn't it interesting that the ones that can be set to play any region discs have skyrocketed in popularity? Now, would that be because people (the people in Britian, anyways) value the freedom that OpenDVD, the EFF and others are championing on our behalf? Or is the MPAA and their apologists going to try to claim that the owners of these DVD players are all pirates?

Jay (=

DeCSS won't stop people buying DVD's. We just want to play them on the device of our chossing. DeCSS is the first step to that.

That is 100% correct. So why don't we take that step and start an actual open DVD player project (not to be confused with OpenDVD.org). It wouldn't be that hard with DeCSS as a basis. There are just a few things that would need to be done in order to render the MPAA's suit pointless and still get to say "fuck you" to them. Things to include in the project:

1. Crack a few existing player keys and include a list of known keys. They'll like that.

2. Include key cracking as part of the DVD player. For example, a dialog pops up: "None of your player keys appear to work for this disk. Would you like to find some new keys? (This could take several minutes.)" Then just use brute-force to determine a new key.

3. Include actual DVD playback with the player. A real DVD player would kill their suit dead.

4. And of course, the real kicker, don't give the MPAA anything to gripe about (legally) - don't save (not even in a temp file) an unencrypted version of an encrypted work. They're new suit: "It cracks encryption, which is illegal under the MPAA... No. it doesn't classify as interoperability, it's piracy!... Well, no you can't save an unencrypted stream, but that's besides the point!"

5. As an added bonus, include an About window that says "None of this would have been possible without DeCSS" and include full source code (but not compiled - don't give them anything to gripe about). An extra little fuck you for the MPAA.

When the suit is dropped, let's all celebrate by buying at least one DVD.

I finally read the article, and if anyone would be to blame for a conspiracy, I'd say it's the security/anti-virus companies like Network Associates. I shouldn't say that they actually did do this, but I would say there is a possibility.

The anti-virus companies in particular have a vested interest in keeping Windows the dominant platform -- viruses are far less common on Linux and other Unix-like OSes.

Of course, I still say that the distributors of Linux should really work harder to make the administration of various services easier to do and understand. CAEN Linux is one good option, plus I see that Bastile Linux (a script for hardening a default RedHat 6.0/6.1 install) is being actively maintained.
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA

I haven't read the article yet (server appears /.'ed), but I know that the security on a default Linux install is very low. We have been bugging distributors for quite a while now to bring down the number of services turned on in a normal installation. Hopefully this will change someone's mind.

Of course, in the Windows world, I know that people send each other .exe files left and right, whether by e-mail, ICQ, or anything else. A perfect way to send viruses or remote-access software. I'm really glad I don't have to worry about that side of things.
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA

Sure, we could do this - I'm not a laywer, but this is similar to the way NDAs work. NDAs just work on a much smaller scale.

But why would we want to submit to this? The DVD-CCA and the DMCA already seek to limit (and to a good extent succeed at limiting) the rights of consumers to use the product they purchased as they see fit. The movie studios and copyright enforcers have some pretty big delusions that consumers are buying "licensed intellectual property". Granted, commercial redistribution should be illegal, but a VHS or DVD purchase is a convienence purchase, not a $15.95 homage paid to their creativity and intellectual property. IMHO, DVDs (and software for that matter) are more like toasters than contractual agreements - you buy it, its yours. If you want to microwave it or something, feel free.

By restricting the DeCSS code with a NDA, we'd be a logical extension of exactly what we're trying to fight - illogical and unfounded restrictions dictating what we can and can't know about our property. The problem is because its in source code form - the DVD-CCA is afraid of the knowledge of their "technology" rather than use of it. It's the fact that they possess the sole knowledge of the encryption scheme that gives them power over consumers and smaller corporations - the power to region-lock movies, the power to artificially drive up prices, the power to extract thousands of dollars from a business for a "key" which offers no benefits.

They fear OpenDVD because it reduces their monopoly and cuts into their already gargantuan botton-line. It's a classic power struggle.

This is all beside the point.

Nobody's talking about copying DVDs and then lending out the originals. It's about being able to interface with the hardware you buy in whatever way you want. You can copy DVDs without a decoder. The only thing the css stuff does is keep you from playing them with anything but an mpaa licenced and approved player, which is crap.

See opendvd.org

The best way to help with legal funding at this time is to purchase a t-shirt from copyleft , 4 dollars US go to EFF for every shirt sold. You also get a copy of DeCSS on their letterhead. You could frame it and call it art.

Joining EFF is not that much money, about the price of lunch in the Baltimore/Washington area, $20 {student) or $35 {basic [regular folks]}. Well, lunch for two (2) maybe, and not at junk-food-R-us.

-d "not working for anyone -- my opinion is mind [sic] alone"

The best way to help with legal funding at this time is to purchase a t-shirt from copyleft , 4 dollars US go to EFF for every shirt sold. You also get a copy of DeCSS on their letterhead. You could frame it and call it art.

Joining EFF is not that much money, about the price of lunch in the Baltimore/Washington area, $20 {student) or $35 {basic [regular folks]}. Well, lunch for two (2) maybe, and not at junk-food-R-us.

-d "not working for anyone -- my opinion is mind [sic] alone"

The best way to help with legal funding at this time is to purchase a t-shirt from copyleft , 4 dollars US go to EFF for every shirt sold. You also get a copy of DeCSS on their letterhead. You could frame it and call it art.

Joining EFF is not that much money, about the price of lunch in the Baltimore/Washington area, $20 {student) or $35 {basic [regular folks]}. Well, lunch for two (2) maybe, and not at junk-food-R-us.

-d "not working for anyone -- my opinion is mind [sic] alone"

Right. Linus said that he would release the pre-releases when he got back.

You may remember that before 2.2.0 came out, there were 'pre-2.2.0' kernels. The same thing will happen with 2.4
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA

Whenever I see a 'CNN story' on Slashdot, I always look carefully at the URL. More often than not, there is a little '.idg' in there somewhere, meaning that the story actually came from an IDG magazine (Some notables: LinuxWorld, PC World, Mac World, Federal Computer Week)

This is one thing that kind of bothers me about the story selection on Slashdot.. Oh well, can't have everything ;-)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA

Fact 1: There are numerous ways to copy DVD information to other formats that does not require the use of DeCSS.

Fact 2: The commercially available blank media for DVD does not permit burning of the encryption keys to the media thus making a copy of an original DVD totally useless

Fact 3: Even if Fact 2 was not true, the DVD players are expecting the media to be encrypted, so it would be a waste of time to decrypt it.

Why shouldn't it be legal for me to make copies of my movies? Why shouldn't it be legal for me to rip it and put it in other formats. Sure, I can see why it would be naughty of me to then take those copies and give it away or sell it, but the ability to commit a criminal act with a technology does not warrant the prohibition of the technology. If that were true, everything from guns to pocket knives would have been illegal long ago.

There are real pirates out there who are making illegal copies, and if the MPAA wants to go after them, fine! But that is not what they are doing! They aren't taking on pirates, they are taking on programmers and web site hosters who want to play DVD's on a Linux! Don't listen to the MPAA spin doctors, look at the facts at opendvd.org.

Our problem is we have no voice ourside our own circles.

I beg of you - please don't flame, or the MPAA will win. Please read the Advocacy guide, and stay calm no matter how angry you might be.

Did you read them? Good.
E-Mail John Forgetta, Editor of CalendarLive at john.forgetta@latimes.com

Remember, if you are being idiots, you are only hurting us, and not helping us one bit.

By the way, I asked a big on-line magazine to publish a link to opendvd.org which links to a petition which you can sign. It is a protest against the way Johanson was treated!

DeCSS does not play DVDs in any fashion, it only copies them.

No. It doesn't copy them. It allows you to read the unencrypted video data. This is a necessary first step to playing DVD's.

If I may quote the www.opendvd.org site:

"Look, it's like this - a DVD Movie is basically just a message [the movie] written in secret code on a piece of paper. To read the message [watch the movie,] you need a secret decoder ring. To be a pirate, you need a photocopier, but you don't need a decoder ring because you don't really care what the secret message is, as long as your photocopier makes nice, crisp copies that your client (who has a decoder ring) can read. All these guys did was make a decoder ring that works under linux, because all the commercial decoder rings only run on Windows [or standalone DVD players.]"

And also, the many court cases showing that the development/distribution/use of DeCCS is completely legal due to (among other laws/precedents) the Millenium Copyright Act.Do you remember the TV industry trying to sue Sony because they used their videos (Betamax specifically) to record programmes for future viewing.

Probably due in large part to the open dvd site, CNN's story actually correctly states DeCSS is for watching DVDs under linux, rather than a copying mechanism as my local papers have been claiming.

Unexpected, but, "way to go" CNN.

Many people (myself included) feel that copying DVDs for personal use falls under fair use, and so should be legal. To do this with DVDs, one needs to break the encryption.

This is incorrect. You do not need to decrypt the disk to copy it. You can do direct copying without decrypting.

This is a very important point. The encryption only prevents playback on systems that don't have MPAA sanctioned players. See this letter on the topic.

Don't let the MPAA incorrectly define what the issue is in this case.

ESR has responded. You can get the short essay he wrote about the subject here. Quite scathing, actually.

i think that the increasing pressure being applied to posters of the decss code can be responded to by the hacker community by bringing more of the same: more copies of the decss code.

i would people who want to help out with the casue to download the tarball from www.opendvd.org and post to a helluva lot more web sites.

It's been asked before, but I have yet to see a clear answer. Somebody please tell us, how can we best help?

what can the people who have cashed in on their IPO do to help?
what can the poor college students do to help?

The best answer I've heard so far is "go read opendvd.org".

Dear Kit,

Thank you for your kind letter.

It is our intention to release a fully legitimate, licensed and legal driver
and navigator for DVD playback under Linux. For technical and legal reasons,
we cannot do this with our Hollywood Plus product, only with our new
NetStream 2000 product. There is no logical argument which you can provide
me which will convince me to break the law or the legitimate copyright and
patent agreements to which we abide.

No company in the world, except for Sigma Designs, has announced support for
DVD under Linux. Other companies have offered to support an Open Source
effort, but as you know, the legality of these efforts is currently under
litigation, and those products do not have complete feature sets. They
cannot navigate DVD menus and take advantage of all of the features of DVD.

[Poster's note: I have quoted a bit of the introduction from the OpenDVD.org - Journalist's fact sheet. This paragraph below is a response to the first few statements about the Linux user's privilege to play DVD's in Linux.]

You mentioned in your quote, when you started your letter, that the DVD
industry has refused to support Linux. This is untrue, as you know that we
have announced support for Linux.

When The Matrix was released on DVD, there were two scenes were some Dolby
Digital decoders skipped audio for 1/2 of a second. Our customers demanded
that we fix the problem, and we did. This is the kind of product we make. It
is the best. It is the one which gets the "Kick Ass" awards.

That's about all I can say, except that I get these requests every day, and
it is very unfortunate that the Linux community has singled us out to
attack, when we are the ones who hired the programmers and spent the money
to develop a product for Linux.

Maybe you can come and visit us at LinuxWorld.

Marshall

[P.S: Well, what do you think, kids? I've heard of the name of the product, so we must Politely ask about it in LinuxWorld, eh?]
--

ESR wrote a response to the lawsuit; I'm not aware of any comments made by Perens.

www.opendvd.org has a nice Linux/BSD DVD howto, which I think covers compilation.

How many people will see this article two days from now, after it has faded into the archives of "old slashdot news"? I suspect that there will be a bombardment of comments to the copyright office today that will trickle off as we near the deadline.

I propose that an ad banner should be created, pointing to a central source for advocacy, (http://www.opendvd.org maybe?) ... Containing by then a copy of this story, an advocacy mini-howto, and a link to the copyright office comment box. If this ad were to run on the Andover network of sites (and maybe also be picked up by traffic-heavy sites with opendvd-friendly admins as well... linux.com?), we might get more thurough feedback on this important issue, even after the slashdot effect dies away.

What do you think?

-Mike

http://www.opendvd.org/dvdintpress.html . BTW, are there any articles that talk about being able to copy DVDs without decrypting, or does that speak for itself?

Can't you in theory also make DVD backups of your VHS tapes under "fair use"?

The DVD case going on in New York is putting the DCMA to the test. We've already lost round one--the preliminary injuction was granted as all of you read.

This case has more significant ramifications than the California case that I'm involved with.

Please read the OpenDVD advocacy how-to at http://www.opendvd.org/advocacy.html

Flamers... please skip the rest of this message. We don't want your help.

The federal government is accepting comments via email at 1201@loc.gov. Use reason to argue why reverse engineering must be allowed for the purposes of interoperability.

The most obvious reason is that it promotes competition. It also empowers consumers.

Here's a summary of exactly what they are accepting comments on...


SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is preparing
to conduct proceedings to make recommendations in accordance with
section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), which
was added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and which provides
that the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from
the prohibition against circumventing a technological measure that
controls access to a copyrighted work. The purpose of this rulemaking
proceeding is to determine whether there are classes of works as to
which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their
ability to make noninfringing uses if they are prohibited from
circumventing such technological measures. This notice requests written
comments from all interested parties, including representatives of
copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives,
scholars, researchers and members of the public, in order to elicit
information and views on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes
of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by such
prohibition.

Does this mean that /. has to take down the links you just put up due to this judge's ruling?

Is this shirt (at Copyleft.net, scroll down, its frames) talking about the same thing we are? (I haven't been following this closely.) If it is, it'd be a good protest shirt or something.

OpenDVD.org

Presto: the protection is compromised, and the DVD coalition is vulnerable to their (erstwhile) partner's legal fury. The content owners could sue the DVD makers right into their pockets for failure to come through on the protection of their content if the DVD coalition doesn't nip this in the bud..

Please be careful on statements like this. The protection WAS NOT compromised by DeCSS. There was simply no protection in the first place. As the OpenDVD fact sheet indicates, CSS' has no copy protection functionality -- it only controlled who could produce player software/hardware for legitimately owned DVDs. Anyone with a DVD-ROM drive, no player software, a hideously expensive DVD-R burner ($5-6k), and equally uneconomical blank DVD-R media (~$50 ea) can copy a DVD. (Oh, yeah, and Linux too. ;-)

That said, the essence of your comments takes on a different light. The DVD coalition made copy protection assurances to the content producers that were not broken by Evil-{Cr,H}acker-People, but rather, were never true in the first place. "Liability Is."

lemuria.org
OpenDVD.org

--

Looking where Gates was asked if the courts were willing to protect the work given away by computer clubs, he defended by stating

"the courts are basically looking for equity solutions,and when you have somebody creating a work, and putting a lot of effort into that, and you have somebody else who is giving it away, the court is looking for the equity of the situation."

If I interpret this correctly, it states the courts are willing to defend the party that is producing the work.

If the courts still defend the parties that produce the work, why are bogus patents and copyright "trade secrets" allowed to be used as extortion against hobbyists?

As far as I know, this is bullshit. The site you are referring to is the openDVD journalist reference page. They say:

"However, as this letter clearly shows, the encryption only hinders playback. It is possible to (illegally) copy a DVD disk without decrypting anything! You can do this because the decryption is done at play time and doesn't have anything to do with copying."

Note that the IEEE article on DVD says:

"This is done by pre-embossing (or in the case of write-once DVD-R media, factory pre-recording) the sector reserved for the DVD-Video or DVD-Audio disc decryption keys. As a result, the recordable blank cannot record a copy of the disc decryption key associated with a bit-by-bit copy's transfer of content, and while the copy itself is not prevented, it is impossible to play back."

That is, titlekeys are written to static *unwritable* location(s). Rick Moen (the person referenced by the opendvd site) says that the linked email 'was not fully informed' , but that he's come across other points to support the defense.

I think it's pretty irresponsible of the opendvd people to knowingly (this assumes they read their feedback email account) misrepresent the facts in this way -- especially to the media.

Note that I've only just started looking into this so I may be wrong -- please feel free to correct me.

.c

As far as I know, this is bullshit. The site you are referring to is the openDVD journalist reference page. They say:

"However, as this letter clearly shows, the encryption only hinders playback. It is possible to (illegally) copy a DVD disk without decrypting anything! You can do this because the decryption is done at play time and doesn't have anything to do with copying."

Note that the IEEE article on DVD says:

"This is done by pre-embossing (or in the case of write-once DVD-R media, factory pre-recording) the sector reserved for the DVD-Video or DVD-Audio disc decryption keys. As a result, the recordable blank cannot record a copy of the disc decryption key associated with a bit-by-bit copy's transfer of content, and while the copy itself is not prevented, it is impossible to play back."

That is, titlekeys are written to static *unwritable* location(s). Rick Moen (the person referenced by the opendvd site) says that the linked email 'was not fully informed' , but that he's come across other points to support the defense.

I think it's pretty irresponsible of the opendvd people to knowingly (this assumes they read their feedback email account) misrepresent the facts in this way -- especially to the media.

Note that I've only just started looking into this so I may be wrong -- please feel free to correct me.

.c

celebrated a federal judge?s ruling that will force a group of New York-based Internet hackers to stop the posting

The same story is run on Yahoo.

However. It seems like the "group of New York-based Internet hackers" have struck back.
www.2600.com is still alive, while www.mpaa.org is unreachable for me :-)

Hey, here is even 2600's link to it all: http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1112.html .
While I'm into linking - OpenDVD.org got so me good facts on the matter at hand.

celebrated a federal judge?s ruling that will force a group of New York-based Internet hackers to stop the posting

The same story is run on Yahoo.

However. It seems like the "group of New York-based Internet hackers" have struck back.
www.2600.com is still alive, while www.mpaa.org is unreachable for me :-)

Hey, here is even 2600's link to it all: http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1112.html .
While I'm into linking - OpenDVD.org got so me good facts on the matter at hand.

Stand up for what you believe in. Post the code on your homepage, or at least link to it. Good sites are:

LiVid

OpenDVD

The more people who post it, the more impact we will have. If everyone with a web page does this, we will win by default.
Romen

esr posted a rather scathing rebuttal to the DVD CCA on OpenDVD.org here. He even went so far as calling them frauds and liars. True, though. Check it out, deffinately a good read.

Oh, I would agree, there was nothing of meaning in the post. My point was that it can't be redundant if it's the first post, that's all. But now I am going to say something "informative". I really do think that this is a great thing for the Mozilla team. Here's why:

It is always a good thing when we as open source developers can get our hands on cool technology (without having to go to court over it. This may be what we need to move SSL and over all Internet security beyond where it is now. I also have no doubt that the OSS community will improve upon the security model, and may build it into Apache, thus making the most secure web server ever.


Munky_v2

So, my theory is (this is assuming that the MPAA isn't just stupendously dumb...which is a rather large assumption), the reason they're suing now isn't to get DeCSS taken off the net, because they know that it's quite a bit too late for that. Instead, it's to get a legal precedent, so that any company thinking of making a "universal" DVD player like the one I described above would know that they'd lose in court.

I doubt that they're stupendously dumb, but my bet is that your conspiracy theory is true. Of course, I think there are probably additional reasons as well.

Undermining fair use precedents is probably a big goal. You know, I know, and they know that there is always a way to make a pirated copy (whether it's an exact duplicate or not.) Maybe they've just been waiting for an excuse to go to court to make sure that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act would be able to be used to circument those pesky rights we've been given that allow for fair use copying. At any rate, I wouldn't be suprised if they haven't been planning for a case like this since before the DMCA was passed into law.

ESR has a nice essay on this case as well; avaiable here. Here's an excerpt:

Why is the DVDCA lying? That's easy -- because the lie sounds a lot better than admitting that DVD is a fraud designed to line the pockets of a few selected players in the consumer-electronics industry. The DVDCA's real issue isn't protection of the market for DVD films, it's control of the market for DVD *players*.


numb

THE INTERNET. (January 15, 2000) - On January 14, 2000, in response to the reverse engineering of the weak DVD encryption system intended to prevent fair use of DVD movies, called "CSS," and subsequent Internet distribution of a cryptanalysis of said system, the major motion picture companies attempted to bully members of the Free Software community into silence by filing injunction complaints in the Southern District of New York and District of Connecticut against four defendants. The victims in New York are Shawn C. Reimerdes, Eric Corley A/K/A "Emmanuel Goldstein," Roman Kazan and Jeraimee Hughes in the District of Connecticut.

The plaintiffs are Universal City Studios, Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.; Tristar Pictures, Inc.; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.; Disney Enterprises, Inc.; and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

Announcing the court action, Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), made the following statement (as translated by Babelfish's corporate halftruths -> reality mode):

"The MPAA is sucker-punching the small guy today in defense of the future of the American Movie Industry's profits. We have filed suit in federal court to stop Free Software developers from distributing the software designed to circumvent the encryption technology that prevents copying and fair use of DVDs. We'd make a lot more profits if you had to buy separate copies of your favorite movies to accomodate the different places you want to play them and the different players you own. If you didn't have to buy a DVD for your living room, and another copy for your bedroom, and a third for your vacation home, as well as a VHS copy for the VCR in your RV, we'd only make 1/4th the profits we would otherwise."

"This is a case of theft. The posting of the de-encryption formula makes it possible for end users to make full and fair use of the videos they've purchased! Now they won't have to buy multiple copies. They can even play the movies on their PC's without buying expensive player software and costly proprietary operating systems! The Industry will sell less licenses for our proprietary player technology! We'll make less money! The DeCSS and Linux DVD player people have stolen these profits from us! Waah!" said Valenti.

Under federal law, it is illegal for anyone to traffic in any product that is designed to render useless encryption devices that protect copyrighted material, thus reducing the Movie Industry's profits by making it unneccessary to purchase multiple copies of movies in order to play them in different places and on different players owned by the same person. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to protect the creators of copyrighted material from not being able to sell multiple copies of the same movie to poor suckers who can't understand how to get around the copy protection.

The MPAA strongly supported the DMCA precisely because of concerns about profits. The defendants' brazen trafficking of the utility plainly violates the profit maximization provisions of the DMCA.

"The U.S. movie industry intends to defeat anyone who steals our profits. We are determined to defend the technology that protects our profits." vowed Valenti. "If you can't protect that which you own, then you don't own anything."

"The Free Software community intends to defeat anyone who interferes with our fair use of information and artwork we've rightfully purchased. We are determined to defend the technology and organizations that protect our rights to fair use," retorted Brian Ristuccia, advocate of the Linux DVD Player Project (LiViD) and operator of a DeCSS mirror site on the Internet. "If you can't use that which you own, then you don't own anything at all," he said.

Additional information on this case may be found on the OpenDVD web site at http://www.opendvd.org/.

I believe the EFF is helping the defendants and that a defense fund will be (is?) set up. Things should not be that hard from the legal side.

On the front of public opinion, however, there is a lot to be done. If everyone who reads this article would phone or mail their local newspaper and tell them what's up (or just point them to the right sources), then we'll be able to make an impact.

http://www.OpenDVD.org/

Just point your local journalists to this site and explain them (politely and patiently) that the movie industry is (illegally) trying to take away consumer's rights. Your rights, their rights!

And remember, nobody will be interested in the story until you can show them that it is relevant to them too. In this case it is, so please use that facet of the story to get publicity...

http://www.OpenDVD.org/

I believe the EFF is helping the defendants and that a defense fund will be (is?) set up. Things should not be that hard from the legal side.

On the front of public opinion, however, there is a lot to be done. If everyone who reads this article would phone or mail their local newspaper and tell them what's up (or just point them to the right sources), then we'll be able to make an impact.

http://www.OpenDVD.org/

Just point your local journalists to this site and explain them (politely and patiently) that the movie industry is (illegally) trying to take away consumer's rights. Your rights, their rights!

And remember, nobody will be interested in the story until you can show them that it is relevant to them too. In this case it is, so please use that facet of the story to get publicity...

http://www.OpenDVD.org/

Help the DVD defandants, help defend your consumer rights! Spread awareness of the OpenDVD.org campaign!

http://www.opendvd.org/

Hey, what dose everyone think about solving the censorship problem by creating a means for people to find out what was censored and connect to it?

Hey, this would be just like what the CSS folks are doing!

The problem, of course, is that the list of banned sites won't be centrally published -- you'd have to get each webmaster (or a fan) to sign his site up after it was banned. I'm not sure what you mean by 'removing all the porn from the lists ...', but that sounds like it would be defeating the purpose of the list in the first place!

I think we're going to see a lot more distributed mirrors in the near future, as entrenched powers try to regulate or intimidate the 'net. Our flexibility and speed is our greatest strength (as long as linking stays legal), and we need to use it.

Maybe my memory just isn't what it used to be, or maybe I'm just out of the loop from being on vacation, but with no links to help me out, I wasn't sure what legal action was taking place here.

But, after searching slashdot a little, now I'm pretty confident that we're talking about DeCSS and that stupid encryption scheme that protects the DVDs that we've already bought from being watched... Hrm. (I'm not too worried about them getting copied, don't have an extra 4.5GB lying around right now, or enough time to encode one properly, but someday I'm sure it will be commonplace.)

So, now that I know what we're talking about... "Fair use". 'Nuff said.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

The creation of new algorithms is difficult. It's one of the things that cannot be done easily by the open source community, which has brought us a lot of very high-quality products in other areas, because you need a very specialized knowledge (signal processing, lossless compression etc.) that only few people have. There was a very well-written comment by Eric Scheirer on this on Slashdot months (a year?) ago, but I couldn't find it.

This webnoise article, linked on slashdot in may is probably what's being referred to here. The comment in question is toward the end of the article.

Now, generally people say this sort of thing for two reasons. Most commonly, they actually believe that no one else on the planet is as smart/knowlegeable/experienced as they are, and couldn't possibly produce rocket science of the requisite level. This is despressingly common, and one of the psychological hurdles (like fear of being judged on work-in-progress as if it's the best one could do in a polished effort) that holds people back from adopting open development practices. This is another strain of what RMS called the Cathedral style of development. It's what was said about writing compilers, operating system kernels and desktop applications, and I don't buy it here either.

The other reason is when the authors are trying to create a aura of "professionalization" around their work, usually so they can remain well placed in their employer's finances. The arguments are similar: "We're trained professionals. Do not try this at home," but the motivation usually has more to do with greed (or at least comfort) than fear.

Neither of these arguments are in line with the values of Open Source, and they amount to arrogant selfishness from that point of view. I'm not arguing that codec design doesn't require specialized knowledge, clever research, etc. Just that it's a fallacy that no one but Eric Schrier &c. can do it.

He did make some other points that a little harder to refute. For example, that the unfair 'fair licensing' patent situation is an historic artefact of the designing bodies being large corporations I can't dispute. He also makes the argument that allowing patented technology into the mpeg standard helps ensure that major corporate players use the standard, that the standard includes the best technology, and that the best technology be patented, rather than buried in an undisclosed proprietary standard. This appears to be well-reasoned, and is certainly consistent with his other claims.

I differ about this being the best course, mostly based on what we've learned about network effects and life in an exponentially-growing market. And vis á vis the dvd stuff, it appears that patents are more restrictive than trade secrets in an open source context.